Article Sidebar

Share this Story: Greg Fingas: Brexit vote could hurt human rights

Trending

Article content

The ultimate ramifications of last week’s Brexit vote (in which 52 per cent of voters in the United Kingdom cast a ballot to leave the European Union) won’t be known for some time. But beyond the instability created by the vote itself, there’s reason for concern about what the U.K. and the international community might negotiate in its wake.

To see why, let’s note the differences between the EU and the free trade structures that are familiar to us.

Greg Fingas: Brexit vote could hurt human rightsBack to video

While many trade agreements include some weak language in areas such as environmental monitoring or labour rights, they generally follow a common pattern.

Investors and corporations receive iron-clad protection, enforceable through friendly and secretive tribunals, and any government action that might affect them is treated as being presumptively invalid. Meanwhile, social interests receive little more than lip service: at best, an under-resourced working group may investigate and report on complaints while lacking the authority to remedy any problems.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

The EU thus stands out in protecting the rights of citizens of its member states, not only the business interests of the parties seeking to shuffle wealth across borders.

Under the EU (and in contrast to both policy and agreement nearly anywhere else in the world), labour enjoys effectively the same freedom of movement as capital. And civil and political rights are enforceable through a court empowered to make binding rulings.

To be sure, the EU comes with some significant warts as well. Most notably, its central bank has recently made a habit of piling additional demands on members already facing economic pressures — though the U.K. was able to avoid that risk by maintaining its own central bank and currency.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

But compared to nearly every other international organization currently in existence, the EU represents a worthy effort to extend the principles of standardization and openness to citizens’ rights, rather than limiting the reach of international co-operation to promoting business interests alone.

Unfortunately, it’s precisely that balance between individual and corporate interests that was exploited in the U.K.’s referendum campaign.

Initially, the “remain” side appeared likely to win based on its focus on the economic risks of exiting the EU. But the “leave” faction eventually abandoned most discussion of broader economic issues to focus on bare immigrant-bashing.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Sadly, that message managed to resonate with enough voters to swing the referendum result. In effect, far too much of a working class that mostly lacks the resources to enjoy the individual rights protected by the EU decided to exercise its minimal political influence to strip that set of rights from groups painted as being “others.”

The vote is being treated in some circles as a popular revolt against elites. But while that may represent a plausible reading of what voters intended to accomplish, it’s highly unlikely the consequences will be borne by anybody fitting into the “elite” category.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

The process to exit the EU includes a negotiation period intended to ensure the continuation of trade arrangements. And while the EU is initially taking a hard line about some commercial concerns (most notably the “passport” enjoyed by London-based banks), we can expect a furious lobbying effort to entrench all the favourable terms businesses can ask for on both sides of the U.K.-EU divide.

If the U.K. ends up following through on the vote to leave the EU, the end result then figures to set a new, lower standard for the significance of human rights compared to business interests. And the result would be a cautionary tale for anybody prone to mistake an expression of frustration for an effective assertion of power.

Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator who has written about provincial and national issues from a progressive NDP perspective since 2005. His column appears every Thursday. You can read more from Fingas at www.gregfingas.com

Share this article in your social network

Share this Story: Greg Fingas: Brexit vote could hurt human rights

Trending

Related Stories

This Week in Flyers

Article Comments

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Notice for the Postmedia Network

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.